Myth: Nuclear energy is to dangerous #
Fact: The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is very low and declining. Over six decades, which represents almost 18,000 cumulative reactor-years of operation, nuclear power has remained the safest means in death of generating electricity per unit energy produced. In line with solar and wind [1].
The flawed Soviet RBMK-1000 reactor at Chernobyl is the only accident which caused any deaths to date, fewer than 50 people [2]. The other accidents: Three Mile Island (1979) and Fukushima (2011) caused no deaths at the time; a non-death toll which is not expected to rise [3, 4].
At least five million people die prematurely each year as a result of air pollution. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear and renewables cut premature deaths from air pollution by about two-thirds—that’s three to four million deaths prevented each year.
Myth: The new designs are generally untested, and there is no guarantee to be safer #
Fact: Even if the lessons learned from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima had produced absolutely no safety improvements of reactor designs since the 1960s, then those reactors were designed. Nuclear energy would still be remarkably safe [1].
The Generation III/III+ reactors are designed with safety systems that would cool down the reactor after an accident without the need for human intervention and operate using natural forces like gravity instead of relying on diesel generators and electric pumps.
Claiming that improvements to reactor design are untested suggests an ignorance of engineering principles on which far more than just nuclear safety depends.
Myth: We can’t calculate the odds of an accident occurring and what the consequences #
Fact: The nuclear sector uses a powerful tool called probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) to assess the consequences and likelihood of different types of accidents. Whether they are initiated by external events (like earthquakes or floods), internal events (such as system malfunctions) or human error [5].
In conducting such assessment, specialists consider all potential accident sequences and look at the performance of the safety systems that need to operate to prevent reactor damage. Specialists also assess the measures in place to limit the consequences of any reactor damage. PSA results are valuable because they confirm the safety of the facilities’ design and identify potential areas for improvement.
Myth: An airplane flown into a reactor wil resulting in a major disaster. #
Fact: The containment buildings surrounding nuclear reactors are specially designed and tested to withstand such events [6]. Additionally, modern generation III/III+ nuclear plants have double containment buildings for added.
The danger of air strikes is significantly greater for every fully occupied high-rise building, stadium or chemical factory. Still, no one is demanding that high-rise buildings, stadiums and chemical plants be equipped with concrete shells.
Myth: Nuclear power depends on people and is risky #
Fact: Only Three Mile Island involved operator error. Chernobyl was a provoked experiment with an flawed design that went wrong and Fukushima was a natural disaster.
Over several decades, the nuclear industry has accumulated considerable operational experience, lessons learned and best practices. This knowledge helps to continuously improve safety standards and ensure the safe operation of nuclear power plants.
Modern reactor designs incorporate advanced designs with enhanced safety features. Such as passive safety systems that, without operator intervention or electronic feedback, safely shut down the plant in the event of an emergency.
Myth: Nuclear reactors can explode like bombs #
Fact: It is not possible for a nuclear reactor to explode like a bomb, it is against the laws of physics. The content of uranium is not high enough to be explosive.
A nuclear bomb is an uncontrolled chain reaction, so that enormous amounts of energy is released in a very short time. The reactions happen quintillion times faster and it’s all over in a split second. A nuclear reactor uses a controlled chain reaction where the same amount of energy is released slowly over a longer period of time (years to decades). It is controlled with negative feedback, so if something goes wrong, the reaction stops.
It was not a nuclear explosion that blew the lid off reactor-4 at Chernobyl, but a steam explosion (Hydrogen). The same at Fukushima. Such can occur (and does occur) at all coal, oil, gas and biomas thermal power plants.
Myth: An accident will make it uninhabitable for 1000 years #
Fact: The worst-case scenario occurred in Fukushima, unleashed by a tsunami of historic proportions. The exclusion zone is 20km, even it is divided into 3. the inner one is only a few km, and the radiation levels in it are not higher than the natural background radiation in Stockholm [7].
Fukushima should never have been evacuated or maintained as an exclusion zone. No one is talking about evacuating Stockholm.
Myth: The clean-up after Fukushima shows it is expensive #
Fact: This argrument completely fails to address the fact that this cleanup was not scientifically necessary but purely a political decision [6]. The radiation levels immediately after the accident reached around 2.74 microsieverts per hour and then decreased according to Fukushima prefecture’s data [8]. The radiation levels in the exclusion zone is radiation levels are not higher than the natural background radiation in Stockholm [7]. Many places in the world have higher natural background radiation.
Unless one advocates for an expensive and costly mishandling, this example is not relevant.
Myth: Germany is closing its nuclear power plants for safety reasons #
Fact: In Germany, the green party and the Social Democrats (SPD), both of whom had nuclear phase-out on their party programme, decided to close down German nuclear power. After Fukushima. Merkel chose to accelerate the phasing out.
There was no safety basis. The German Reactor Safety Commission review of the 17 reactors in 2011 provided a safety guarantee and concluded all units were safe [8].
Before the report came out, Merkel and the German government had decided to phase out.
Myth: Fukushima could have gone like Chernobyl #
Fact: The conditions and the differance between the Soviet RBMK-1000 reactor at Chernobyl were significantly different from the light water reactors (Fukushima).
The light water reactors have a containment building, which holds most of the radioactive material in connection with accidents. Chernobyl had none. Besides combining RMBK-1000 graphite with water cooling which makes it unstable and flammable.
At Chernobyl, graphite, the fuel, the holders, which were first exploded, and especially spread globally via first the explosion, then the reactor heat caused a 9 day long fire in the graphite when oxygen was added.
Read more about Fukushima
Myth: Radioactive release in fukushimas was bigger than nuclear bombs #
Fact: Instead of saying that a total of 11 kilograms of material (out of approximately 60,000 kilograms of fuel per unit) escaped from the reactor pressure vessels, people who discourage the beneficial use of nuclear energy say that the plants “spewed” 36,000 terabecquerels of radioactivity. (A terabecquerel of Cs-137 has a mass of 3.2 grams.)
If that number does not scare people thoroughly enough, some nuclear opponents compare the cesium emissions from Fukushima to the cesium emissions from the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
The Hiroshima bomb produced its explosive power fissioning about 1 kilogram of U-235. The 6.3% fission yield for Cs-137 means that Little Boy, the Hiroshima bomb, produced a little less than 30 grams of Cs-137. (89 terabecquerels at 3.2 gms/terabecquerel).
That means that the melted Fukushima reactors did not release a mass of radioactive cesium that is about half the weight of the backpack one routinely carry when spend a weekend on the Appalachian Trail [9].
Sources #
- What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? – Our World in Data
- What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima? – Our World in Data
- Backgrounder On The Three Mile Island Accident | NRC.gov
- www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/AdditionalVolumes/P1710/Pub1710-TV1-Web.pdf
- Probabilistic safety assessment: A tool to estimate risk and drive safety improvement at nuclear power plants – Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
- F-4 Phantom Jet Slams into Wall with its Afterburner On – YouTube
- https://blog.japanwondertravel.com/report-of-fukushima-exclusion-zone-tour-from-tokyo-10784#:~:text=There%20is%20still%20an%20exclusion,is%20prohibited%20with%20some%20exceptions.
- Radiation levels in the prefecture – Fukushima Revitalization Information Portal Website
- World Nuclear Association – World Nuclear News (world-nuclear-news.org)
- https://www.ans.org/news/article-958/fukushima-facts-to-overcome-fears/
